Full Breakdown
Lawsuit Challenges DOGE's Use of ChatGPT to Cancel Jewish-Themed Grants
3/11/2026, 9:09:33 PM
Overview of the Controversy
A class-action lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), alleging that DOGE improperly used ChatGPT to classify and cancel federal humanities grants related to Jewish themes as part of a broader initiative to eliminate funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The lawsuit, brought by the Authors Guild and several academic organizations, seeks to restore approximately 80% of NEH grants that were terminated, including those focused on significant topics such as violence against women during the Holocaust.
Methodology Behind Grant Cancellations
According to the lawsuit, DOGE staffer Justin Fox developed a method using ChatGPT to determine which grants to cut. The AI was prompted to assess whether specific grants related to DEI, with responses guiding the cancellation of numerous projects. For instance, Fox stated that any grant focusing on a minority group, including Jewish culture, was inherently related to DEI and thus eligible for termination. This led to the cancellation of projects like "In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union," which was flagged by ChatGPT for its Jewish content.
NEH's Response and Internal Dynamics
Michael McDonald, the acting chair of the NEH, indicated in depositions that he was unaware of DOGE's use of ChatGPT and disagreed with the classification of Holocaust-related grants as DEI. Despite this, the final authority for grant cancellations rested with DOGE, which resulted in the termination of over 97% of NEH grants. Internal communications revealed a lack of leadership from McDonald, who allowed DOGE to dictate grant terminations without adequate scrutiny or consideration of NEH recommendations.
Criticism and Opposition
Critics of the grant cancellations argue that the actions of DOGE reflect a broader trend of politicizing funding decisions in the humanities. Scholars like Sasha Senderovich and Harriet Murav have expressed concern that classifying Jewish-themed projects as DEI undermines the historical context of Jewish experiences and fails to recognize the unique challenges faced by Jewish communities. Murav specifically noted that DEI initiatives are not aimed at American Jews, who are often overrepresented in academia and professional fields.
Broader Implications of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit not only seeks to restore funding but also raises questions about the role of DEI in academia and whether Jewish projects should be included in these initiatives. Prominent voices, including Bari Weiss, have argued that current DEI practices can be antisemitic by failing to recognize Jews as an underrepresented minority. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future funding and the perception of Jewish studies within the broader context of DEI.
What's Next
The Authors Guild and its co-plaintiffs await a judge's ruling on a summary judgment that could potentially avoid a trial. The case highlights ongoing tensions surrounding federal funding for humanities projects and the influence of political agendas on academic research. As the NEH continues to award grants, the focus appears to be shifting towards projects aligned with conservative values, raising concerns about the agency's ability to fulfill its mission of promoting diverse scholarly work.
